Michael David Dyal

Intravascular imaging (IVI) is widely recognized to improve outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, IVI is underutilized and is not yet established as a performance measure for quality PCI. We examined temporal trends of IVI use for all PCIs performed at Veterans Affairs hospitals in the United States from 2010 to 2022 using retrospective observational cohorts. IVI was defined as intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomography. A contemporary subset of PCIs from 2020 to 2022 was used to examine clinical characteristics associated with IVI use and test the reliability of IVI as a pass/fail performance measure. We then used a generalized linear mixed model to estimate the proportion of IVI use variability attributable to the hospital, physician, and patient level. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the association of IVI with clinical outcomes at 1 year. IVI use increased from 12.3% in 2010 to 43.1% in 2022 in 136 071 PCIs included in the study. Among 22 918 PCIs in the contemporary cohort, IVI was more frequent with nonemergent presentations, chronic total occlusions, and left main lesions but usage variability was primarily attributable to hospital (54%) and physician (33%) levels. As a pass/fail performance measure, reliability was high (>0.96) at hospital and physician levels. However, IVI use was not associated with statistically significant differences in mortality or major adverse cardiovascular events in this cohort. IVI use for PCI is increasing rapidly at Veterans Affairs hospitals in the United States but with marked variation at the hospital and physician levels. IVI meets established criteria for an effective performance measure and should be measured and reported by local and national organizations to encourage further uptake. Ongoing training and quality improvement may be required to maximize the benefit of IVI as it is more widely utilized.

Frailty is a common geriatric syndrome often coexisting with cardiovascular diseases such as atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). While catheter ablation (CA) has demonstrated efficacy in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events and improving mortality and quality of life, the influence of frailty among this population remains unknown. The authors aimed to identify the prevalence of frailty among patients with HFrEF and AF undergoing CA and its influence on cardiovascular mortality and discharge disposition. From January 2016 to December 2019, we used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample to identify patients with AF and HFrEF. Frailty was identified by the presence of ≥1 diagnostic cluster utilizing the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups with malnutrition, dementia, impaired vision, decubitus ulcer, urinary incontinence, loss of weight, poverty, barriers to access to care, difficulty walking, and falls as indicators. We compared clinical outcomes among frail vs nonfrail patients, including all-cause in-hospital mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, other major complications, discharge disposition, and hospital length of stay using multivariable regression analysis. Of 113,115 weighted admissions, 11,725 (10.4%) were classified as frail. Frail patients were older (median age: 76 [IQR: 15] years vs 70 [IQR: 15] years,  < 0.001) than nonfrail patients. Frailty was associated with increased odds of all-cause hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.64; 95% CI: 1.87-3.72;  < 0.001), major adverse cardiovascular events (aOR: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.62-2.47;  < 0.001), and nonhome discharge (aOR: 3.31; 95% CI: 2.78-3.94;  < 0.001). Frail patients also experienced longer hospital length of stay (median 9 [IQR: 10] days vs 5 [IQR: 5] days,  < 0.001) after adjustment by Poisson regression (coefficient: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.46-0.59;  < 0.001). Frailty is associated with worse outcomes in patients with HFrEF undergoing CA for AF. The integration of frailty models in clinical practice may facilitate prognostication and risk stratification to optimize patient selection for CA.

The use of nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (NDCCBs) to achieve rate control in atrial fibrillation with the rapid ventricular rate (AF RVR) is not recommended in patients with comorbid heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) due to the concern for further blunting of contractility. However, these recommendations are extrapolated from data examining chronic NDCCB use in HFrEF patients, and comorbid AF was not analyzed. These recommendations also do not cite the hemodynamic effects or clinical outcomes of NDCCBs for acute rate control in HFrEF patients with AF RVR. It is our goal to open the discussion concerning the hemodynamic effects and safety profile of NDCCBs for acute rate control in this specific patient population. In the acute setting of AF RVR and HFrEF, there is a paucity of low-quality data on the safety and hemodynamic effects of NDCCBs, with mixed results. There has not been a clear signal toward adverse outcomes with NDCCBs, particularly for diltiazem. Data in this scenario is similarly limited for beta blockers, which provide the additional hemodynamic effect of the neurohormonal blockade, which provides a long-term mortality benefit to HFrEF patients. We support the cautious use of beta blockers as first-line therapy in clinical settings where an acute rate control strategy for AF RVR is warranted. We also support diltiazem as a reasonable second-line option, though the relative paucity of data calls for further research to validate this conclusion. Verapamil in this setting should be avoided until more data are available.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures have increased exponentially since FDA approval in 2011. Older patients who underwent aortic valve replacement, either TAVI or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), have elevated risk. Using the National Readmission Database, we included patients ≥80 years who underwent either TAVI or SAVR from 2011 to 2015. In-hospital outcomes of TAVI versus SAVR were compared using propensity-matched analysis to reduce the confounding effect of between-group imbalances. We identified a total of 30,590 TAVI and 54,204 SAVR procedures performed during the study period. The propensity score-matching algorithm yielded 19,713 patients in each group. The in-hospital mortality rates were significantly lower in TAVI compared with SAVR (3.4% vs 6.8%, p <0.001). Similarly, the 30-day readmission rate (15.2% vs 18.1% p = 0.001), in-hospital complications, mean length of stay (7 vs 12 days, p <0.001), and hospital cost (US$ 60,534 vs US$ 67,426) were significantly lower for TAVI patients. There was a significant increase in the use of TAVI (26 cased per month in 2011 to 1,237/month in 2015) and a decrease in SAVR (1,409/month in 2011 to 859/month in 2015) during the study period. In-patient mortality significantly decreased for patients who underwent TAVI (4.4% in 2011 to 2.5% in 2015) and did not significantly change for patients who underwent SAVR (5.0% in 2011 to 4.7% in 2015). Overall, the number of SAVR procedures remained two thirds higher than TAVI. In conclusion, in octo- and nonagenarians, TAVI is an effective and safer alternative to SAVR as it is associated with lower in-hospital mortality, lower major in-hospital complications, lower 30-day readmission rate, and hospital costs. Despite this, SAVR remained the most common approach in octogenarians, although the trends in this data set, suggest a shift in practice patterns for this cohort.

Introduction: Impella is a catheter-based micro-axial flow pump placed across the aortic valve, and it is currently the only percutaneous left ventricular assist device approved for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention and cardiogenic shock. Areas Covered: Even though several studies have repeatedly demonstrated the excellent hemodynamic profile of Impella in high-risk settings, it remains underutilized. Here we aim to provide an up-to-date summary of the available literature on Impellas use in High risk settings as well as the practical aspects of its usage. Expert Commentary: Percutaneous coronary interventions in high rsk settings have always been challenging for a physician. Impella 2.5 and CP, have been proven safe, cost effective and feasible in High Risk Percutaneous coronary Interventions with an excellent hemodynamic profile.